I can't go with that for the most part as to it's holding up the legalization process. Expungement has many facets and it can be dealt with as a separate issue while the legalization process moves along.

In the Jersey City that I grew up in bookies were the order of the day if you wanted to play a number. When the lottery was initiated did all of the bookies who were arrested have the records cleaned up?--no.

Go back further to prohibition and people who broke that law and were arrested. Were their records cleaned up?

To me it makes no difference whether a record for possession is erased, but let's get it out of the way and move along.

Sadly, US history is not a place to look for justice. It would not be as big a deal if a felony conviction didn't utterly fuck you for life in terms of your employability. Having sold a little weed at 19 doesn't mean that you'll steal from your employer at 30, but no one will hire you for a good job with a felony record. I can understand the reasoning to push for expungment now when there's leverage to be had, rather than later when there's none.

I can't go with that for the most part as to it's holding up the legalization process. Expungement has many facets and it can be dealt with as a separate issue while the legalization process moves along.

In the Jersey City that I grew up in bookies were the order of the day if you wanted to play a number. When the lottery was initiated did all of the bookies who were arrested have the records cleaned up?--no.

Go back further to prohibition and people who broke that law and were arrested. Were their records cleaned up?

To me it makes no difference whether a record for possession is erased, but let's get it out of the way and move along.

In Jersey City's Journal Square neighborhood Tuesday, a number of passersby shared their thoughts on the future of marijuana in the state just hours after New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal advised all local and county prosecutors to put a hold on marijuana-related offenses until Sept. 4.

Many see the move as a prelude to eventual decriminalization and legalization.

New Jersey Attorney General and Jersey City to Collaborate on Statewide Directive Mitigating Marijuana Convictions30-Day Postponement of all Marijuana Cases Statewide to be implemented immediately; Jersey City and Attorney General to jointly draft statewide directive on marijuana charges

JERSEY CITY – After a Monday meeting between Jersey City officials and The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office an agreement was reached on the path forward addressing Jersey City’s marijuana decriminalization policy and the Attorney General Office’s concerns.

Effective Tuesday morning, a memo was released to all 21 county prosecutors regarding a 30-day statewide adjournment of all marijuana charges and soon-to-be developed statewide guidelines with regard to downgrades and dismissal of simple marijuana offenses.

“This is a huge win for Jersey City, the state of NJ, and most importantly the people who would have been impacted by the creation of a criminal record due to a simple marijuana arrest,” said Mayor Fulop. “We are excited that Attorney General Grewal and Jersey City found common ground, avoiding the collateral consequences of convictions for marijuana possession while our great state is on the cusp of legalization,” Fulop Continued.

On Wednesday, July 18th, Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop and Chief Prosecutor Jake Hudnut announced that the City would dismiss simple marijuana possession cases that come before the municipal courts or amend these charges to local ordinance violations, effectively decriminalizing marijuana in Jersey City. In addition to the racial inequalities and potentially life-altering consequences that stem from marijuana prosecution and conviction, there is a significant cost burden on local municipalities who oversee these charges. But on July 20, 2018, Attorney General Gurbir Grewal voided the policy. While Jersey City disagrees with the Attorney General’s interpretation of applicable law, the City respects the Attorney General’s action and his authority.

However, on Monday, in light of public support for the policy, Jersey City officials from the Municipal Prosecutor’s office, the Department of Public Safety, and the Law Department met with Attorney General Grewal to discuss how the objectives of decriminalization can effectively be implemented both in Jersey City and across New Jersey. As a result of this positive and productive meeting, Attorney General Grewal will convene a working group of criminal justice stakeholders this summer – including Chief Prosecutor Hudnut – to study this issue and advise the Attorney General on statewide solutions that achieve the same aims of decriminalization in accordance with existing state law and court rules.

“I took the job as Chief Prosecutor in Jersey City to help build a progressive, proactive, and thoughtful prosecutors office. We want to make sure that Jersey City is at the forefront of these conversations and I’m proud to have pushed this issue from the onset,” said Jersey City Chief Prosecutor Jake Hudnut

The directive will provide guidance on the appropriate circumstances warranting downgrade to local ordinance or outright dismissal of marijuana cases statewide. The aim of this directive will be to mitigate or eliminate the likelihood of disorderly person misdemeanor convictions for simple possession of marijuana while New Jersey is on the verge of legalization of marijuana, as well as the collateral consequences that come with those convictions. Collateral consequences include driver’s license suspension, criminal records, loss of student financial aid, bans from public housing, adverse effects on employment opportunities, and loss of immigration status.

In today’s memo, the Attorney General has further directed all municipal prosecutors throughout the state to seek adjournments of their pending marijuana cases until after September 4, 2018. This means that all open marijuana cases in the state’s municipal courts will be postponed until the Attorney General’s directive is issued and could effectively amount to a moratorium of – or a substantial reduction in – marijuana convictions in New Jersey between now and future legalization.

Said Chief Prosecutor Hudnut, “In adjourning all marijuana cases across New Jersey while a directive is prepared, Attorney General Grewal has put himself at the national forefront of progressive prosecutors. I am looking forward to working closely with him in the coming weeks on this directive, as well as on other issues affecting all of our state’s municipal courts. I believe that all of New Jersey’s municipal courts should exercise integrity and thoughtfully administer justice every day. In Attorney General Grewal, I have found a strong, progressive partner in that pursuit.”

JERSEY CITY — Jersey City spent one day riding high on its new policy decriminalizing marijuana before state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal told the city's new chief prosecutor on Friday that the policy is void because it violates state criminal laws.

JERSEY CITY — Jersey City spent one day riding high on its new policy decriminalizing marijuana before state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal told the city's new chief prosecutor on Friday that the policy is void because it violates state criminal laws.

Seagull wrote:What do you have against a home grow provision? That's what's most confusing to me. Why are you arguing against one?

Umm, I think you need to read slower. When you said you can always grow your own, I was merely pointing out that it might not necessarily be so.

I was warning against the possibility that New Jersey could not include a grow provision, after it was brought up that taxes were the primary motivation and they might limit grow. That does not mean I support it!

I now understand that you are not aware of the details of the bill. There is currently no provision for home growing in this bill. It's not a "possibility", it's the current reality. Also, at no point did I say you can, "always grow your own." I'm advocating for the right to do so, which under the current bill will still be illegal. Understand?

Yes, and that sucks. You're right, I did not read the bill, but in all your posts you did not actually say growing would still be illegal.

Seagull wrote:What do you have against a home grow provision? That's what's most confusing to me. Why are you arguing against one?

Umm, I think you need to read slower. When you said you can always grow your own, I was merely pointing out that it might not necessarily be so.

I was warning against the possibility that New Jersey could not include a grow provision, after it was brought up that taxes were the primary motivation and they might limit grow. That does not mean I support it!

I now understand that you are not aware of the details of the bill. There is currently no provision for home growing in this bill. It's not a "possibility", it's the current reality. Also, at no point did I say you can, "always grow your own." I'm advocating for the right to do so, which under the current bill will still be illegal. Understand?

Jersey City is implementing a marijuana decriminalization policy that its mayor and new chief municipal prosecutor believe will increase racial justice while protecting public safety.

The policy, which is expected to begin officially tomorrow, will downgrade some marijuana charges to non-criminal offenses; encourage prosecutors to seek dismissal of low-level marijuana charges; and recommend diverting defendants with a criminal past and signs of addiction to the city's community court.https://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... licy_for_jersey_city.html

Seagull wrote:What do you have against a home grow provision? That's what's most confusing to me. Why are you arguing against one?

Umm, I think you need to read slower. When you said you can always grow your own, I was merely pointing out that it might not necessarily be so.

I was warning against the possibility that New Jersey could not include a grow provision, after it was brought up that taxes were the primary motivation and they might limit grow. That does not mean I support it!

Seagull wrote:I don't personally have a problem with paying the tax on marijuana if there is a home grow provision. Alcohol is similarly taxed, but people also have the liberty to brew their own alcohol at home

Huh? What argument do you think I am making? It's already been established that Washington passed recreational legalization without home growing. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that New Jersey could do likewise.

What do you have against a home grow provision? That's what's most confusing to me. Why are you arguing against one?

Seagull wrote:I don't personally have a problem with paying the tax on marijuana if there is a home grow provision. Alcohol is similarly taxed, but people also have the liberty to brew their own alcohol at home

Huh? What argument do you think I am making? It's already been established that Washington passed recreational legalization without home growing. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that New Jersey could do likewise.

Seagull wrote:I don't personally have a problem with paying the tax on marijuana if there is a home grow provision. Alcohol is similarly taxed, but people also have the liberty to brew their own alcohol at home

Seagull wrote:The only state that did not include a home growing provision was Washington state, and if you look into it, the people in the state are now having to contact their elected officials to try to get on board with a home growing provision. NJ doesn't want a home grow provision because they want everyone to buy marijuana from the state. They keep saying this is for racial justice, but I think it would be more just of them to not be so transparently greedy. Many minorities are too poor to have a car to drive to a dispensary let alone have enough money to spend on overtaxed marijuana. If this is really about racial justice, they should prove it and provide the masses with a sensible home grow provision like Vermont. Two mature female plants in flowering at any time, and six plants total.

Didn't know about WA. But this "overtaxed" is overblown. If an $8 gram has $2 tax, do you really think that's so awful? Booze is similarly taxed and no one is hysterical. The dispensary limiting IS a big deal. If you have to drive an hour, or spend hours on public transit to reach the nearest dispensary, that's deliberate hardship.

Please... does anyone really believe the state will make it difficult to purchase legal weed? That type of restriction would defeat the purpose of making it legal for their constituents. As some one said earlier, high taxes and inaccessibility will only create a booming underground market.

Seagull wrote:I don't personally have a problem with paying the tax on marijuana if there is a home grow provision. Alcohol is similarly taxed, but people also have the liberty to brew their own alcohol at home

I don't personally have a problem with paying the tax on marijuana if there is a home grow provision. Alcohol is similarly taxed, but people also have the liberty to brew their own alcohol at home.

Quote:

brewster wrote:[quote]

Didn't know about WA. But this "overtaxed" is overblown. If an $8 gram has $2 tax, do you really think that's so awful? Booze is similarly taxed and no one is hysterical. The dispensary limiting IS a big deal. If you have to drive an hour, or spend hours on public transit to reach the nearest dispensary, that's deliberate hardship.

Seagull wrote:The only state that did not include a home growing provision was Washington state, and if you look into it, the people in the state are now having to contact their elected officials to try to get on board with a home growing provision. NJ doesn't want a home grow provision because they want everyone to buy marijuana from the state. They keep saying this is for racial justice, but I think it would be more just of them to not be so transparently greedy. Many minorities are too poor to have a car to drive to a dispensary let alone have enough money to spend on overtaxed marijuana. If this is really about racial justice, they should prove it and provide the masses with a sensible home grow provision like Vermont. Two mature female plants in flowering at any time, and six plants total.

Didn't know about WA. But this "overtaxed" is overblown. If an $8 gram has $2 tax, do you really think that's so awful? Booze is similarly taxed and no one is hysterical. The dispensary limiting IS a big deal. If you have to drive an hour, or spend hours on public transit to reach the nearest dispensary, that's deliberate hardship.

The only state that did not include a home growing provision was Washington state, and if you look into it, the people in the state are now having to contact their elected officials to try to get on board with a home growing provision. NJ doesn't want a home grow provision because they want everyone to buy marijuana from the state. They keep saying this is for racial justice, but I think it would be more just of them to not be so transparently greedy. Many minorities are too poor to have a car to drive to a dispensary let alone have enough money to spend on overtaxed marijuana. If this is really about racial justice, they should prove it and provide the masses with a sensible home grow provision like Vermont. Two mature female plants in flowering at any time, and six plants total.

Quote:

brewster wrote:Quote:

MDM wrote:Weed is even easier than tobacco (which has to be dried, toasted, and has other stuff added to it). Anyone with $500 to spare can setup a pretty nice grow room in a spare closet.

I don't think any of the rec legal states have outlawed growing your own, some have pretty liberal ideas of how much is required for "personal use", typically 4-6 plants. And as it turns out, the taxes are not a big deal when the market is driving the price into the basement. I hear in CA its crazy cheap now.

All the gloom and doom predictions of corporate control of this product don't make any sense as long as personal growing is possible. Corps will do all the concentrates and such, where the money is, just like ADM makes far more than the farmer growing corn.

Our state lawmakers are morons, wanting to legalize possession but leave all the distribution in the hands of criminals. Is this Rice guy on dealer's payrolls?

Quote:

Senator Ronald R. Rice, the chairman of the state’s legislative black caucus and one of the most vocal opponents of legalization, fears dispensaries would be concentrated in cities. “In my heart, and from my experience, I know the detriment it’s going to cause long-term in urban communities in particular,” he said. He supports decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana instead.